Evidence of meeting #22 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was trademark.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Bar Association
No, it's required for domestic, yes.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
So everybody in the U.S. has to fill in a declaration of use.
4:50 p.m.
Treasurer and Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
To be clear, they have to either state use in the application and provide a specimen showing that mark is used at the time they file or they will have to file a statement of use with that specimen later.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
So it's not a little form. But your comments earlier—
4:50 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Bar Association
Well, let's look at it because the systems are very similar at the moment. At the moment for a Canadian trademark application, if the mark has been used, the owner must indicate that it has been used and provide a date of use. The only difference is that we don't provide specimens. We did at one time, but that requirement was eliminated long ago. Or if it's a proposed use application, then when the application is allowed, that's where the applicant is required to declare use.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Okay.
Because time is so short, I want to go to your other comment. You said, yes, there are lots of people in the international community who don't use it. In fact, some of the information that has been provided to us is that Canada is in fact not at all aligned with the international community, where the form is not required. Do you have any comments on that?
4:55 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Bar Association
Well, again, we understand that some of the international community, including Europe, is rethinking these requirements—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Bar Association
Yes, Europe is a big one, and the U.S., our largest trading partner, has this requirement.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
You just said on the record that Europe requires this—
4:55 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Bar Association
No, they're rethinking it. That's my understanding.
4:55 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Bar Association
Europe at the moment does not require it, but they're rethinking it, again, because of issues like this, like the trademark squatting, pre-clearing, and the cost, etc.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Okay. Thank you. You made me feel like a lawyer.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
May 12th, 2014 / 4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Thank you all very much.
While the debate on Bill C-31 has been going on, and of course, Bill C-8, being very similar, the government has insisted that this was going to be good for business, right? But the amount of letters and other things from IP people and lawyers from across this country flagging this issue have been very overwhelming.
Can you tell me a little bit more about this? Since a lot of people seem to think this is going to hurt businesses in Canada, and you have more or less all been alluding to that fact, could you reiterate some of the ways that it's going to affect business in Canada if this goes forward?
4:55 p.m.
Treasurer and Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
We talked about the clutter on the register. I think that's an important one because it takes a lot of trademarks out of circulation, and there are few enough as it is. I think there is a certain amount of upheaval involved in taking a hundred-some years of case law defining trademarks, defining what use is, defining when rights can be exerted, and flushing it down the toilet, because I think that the abolition of the use requirement goes a long way toward doing that. It takes a system that has been entirely use-based, where you could not get a registration in Canada without having use somewhere in the world, to one where simply no use is required at all. I think a lot of the case law that has been developed over the years, which gives us stability in the legal community and as businesses, is really going to be useless after amendments like this. That could only hurt business.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Do you think we could end up with a constitutional challenge as a result of this?
4:55 p.m.
Treasurer and Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
I suppose anybody can challenge anything. I don't know enough about the division of powers to be able to say whether the trade and commerce power that the federal government has is exceeded in any way by this.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
In the documentation we received from the law society and so on, they urged the government to do more consultations on this issue. I didn't think we have had enough consultation. I don't remember how long it was we dealt with this, but it was not a very long time for something as significant as Bill C-8. It did, however, certainly for all of us in the committee, show us the number of challenges there are, and the need to have good policy and good law in Canada.
Is the intent of use issue the most significant part that concerns you in Bill C-31 and Bill C-8 when it comes to the trademarks?
